Debate: Percutaneous left atrial appendage closure. The clinical cardiology perspective

QUESTION: Briefly, what is the evidence behind the percutaneous left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) regarding oral anticoagulation (OA)? Is there any evidence on direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DAOAs)? ANSWER: The main clinical evidence published on this regard comes from 3 randomized clinical t...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:REC, Interventional cardiology (Internet. English ed.) Interventional cardiology (Internet. English ed.), 2021-06, Vol.3 (2), p.129-130
1. Verfasser: Cosín-Sales, Juan
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:QUESTION: Briefly, what is the evidence behind the percutaneous left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) regarding oral anticoagulation (OA)? Is there any evidence on direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DAOAs)? ANSWER: The main clinical evidence published on this regard comes from 3 randomized clinical trials (2 vs anti-vitamin K and 1 vs DAOAs), registries, and case series. The PROTECT AF clinical trial1 included 707 patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and CHADS2 scores ≥ 1 who were randomized on a 2:1 ratio to receive the Watchman device (Boston Scientific, United States) or warfarin. The composite endpoint (stroke, cardiovascular death, and systemic embolism) was less prevalent in patients with the Watchman device (relative risk [RR], 0.62; 95% confidence interval [95%CI], 0.35-1.25); however, adverse events were more common in the device group (RR, 1.69; 95%CI, 1.01-3.19) mainly due to periprocedural complications. These increased adverse events ...
ISSN:2604-7322
2604-7322
DOI:10.24875/RECICE.M20000199